Ascari_2

When I bought the car I was blown away by the sound quality of the ML system. But the music coming from the speakers is only as good as the source, so listening to something like XM or Pandora felt like the system was being wasted. The sound quality from either of those sources is nowhere as good as CD quality.

Fast forward a few weeks when a coworker and I are going to lunch and he starts streaming something from his phone (we're in his car). The music sounded fantastic, so I asked if he was really streaming since I could swear this was CD quality audio. Well he was in fact streaming using Google Play Music. By that evening and before my usual drive home I was subscribed to their service and was very excited to try it out. Well it didn't take long for me to realize that this is one service that's absolutely worth the $10/month. Wow! It really was like listening to a CD, but I now had a practically unlimited database of music, the ability to search for songs from every parts of the globe, play google's version of Pandora's adaptive radio stations, create my own play lists, and basically do just about anything I could desire with music. Google also lets you stream at 320 kbps which is about as close to CD quality as you can get.

So if you are looking for some way to enjoy your ML system, I would highly recommend Google Play.

PS, I am no way affiliated with google. Just think their music service is the perfect companion for our cars.

roadfrog

hmmmm.....interesting. I may have to look into this.

Devh

Believe it or not, FM radio is far better then internet streaming especially during the days of LP records.
Then CDs were ok over FM and it was literally killed by digital radio. What we hear now on FM is probably compressed computer generated crap.
If you have a good system you can appreciate the difference but if you have regular factory system it all just blends in and might as well be mono. 320 kbps is still crap compared to CD, and CD is crap next to 24 bit audio. If you want your mind to be blown listen to audio in 24/96.

Ascari_2

Dev, I by no means suggest that 320 kbps will reproduce the greatest sound quality. But it sounds tons better than XM, Pandora, or any other streaming service I've listened up to this point. The key for me was getting great music with the convenience of a streaming service and not driving around with a trunk full of CDs.

By the way they do a free one month trial at first which helped convince me to at least try it.

escapedcon

funny you posted this because I was pondering which service to keep Pandora or Google Music...I am a paying customer on both right now but find myself using Google Music almost exclusively when I bike.

Never listened to either in my LS through the ML system, though

I guess Google Play it is! Thanks!
(looks like there is a valid reason for the double cost sub fee)

Ascari_2

Not sure what your data plan is, but if you can afford to stream at a higher bit rate, be sure to go into settings of Google play and adjust that. It's just a quality setting (mentions nothing about bit rate) that needs to be set to the highest level.

escapedcon

well, I found this comparison:
http://time.com/30081/13-streaming-m...size-and-more/

I guess you do get what you pay for.

My Google Music mobile networks stream quality setting is indeed set to "High"...which according to the above is 320kbps

Devh

Don't get me wrong 320kbps is still much better then 96 and 128. It just amazes me that they can label digital radio being associated with quality. It is truly sad that most people have devolved to worse compression standards but then again new music today is just as bad. I think 320kbps is a start and if they can start pumping in 16bit digital audio with the increased bandwidth it would be like a breath of fresh air.

R Z

Until you can play vinyl in your car, forgetaboutit!

thelawnet

This is not true. 320kbit is indistinguishable from CD. And 24 bit audio is indistinguishable from 16. What you may find is that 24 bit releases will be mastered with more dynamic range and therefore may sound better than the standard CD.

But there is no inherent superiority about a 24 bit release that can't be matched on Cd or 320kbit MP3.

Devh

Basically what you're saying is 320kbit is as good as it gets. I agree if your piping it into a system they cannot take advantage of better audio. I disagree in that there is a world of difference. The same argument could be made that 96Khz is just as good as 320khz, but that's simply not true either unless its played through tiny portable speakers hooked up to a cheap MP3 player.

It also depends on how good your hearing is and if you can appreciate the subtile nuances in music that can make a profound difference.
There is a point where blind tests can reveal a placebo effect where the listener cannot discern between high quality recording and lower one but this is simply not the case with 24-bit audio being played in a capable system that can take advantage of it. There is a point however which human hearing has reached a limit and that is discerning the difference between 24-bit 96 kHz and 24bit 196 kHz.

Then there is a point in car audio where the differences between a good system and a great system are further reduced because of road noise but in the Lexus can take advantage of a good sound system because of it's isolation in the cabin.
The better the system is the more flaws are revealed with the lower quality recording.

Devh

I forgot to mention one thing. If the original source of the music is crap, by that I mean the audio engineer used a lot of compression and was simply not very good at his job then this will translate down the chain into your audio and no amount of higher resolution is going to be discernible from a lower one. Having a high-end system is sometimes a double-edged sword in that the flaws of the recording are revealed compare to a low-end system where it's just muddle through and will probably sound better to the person who's not interested in high-end audio.

R Z

As a musician, I record in 16bit. While there are those who ascertain that 24 bit is better, and I won't necessarily disagree, it would take a master engineer to really notice. Not to mention that since all cd's are dithered down to 16 bit, the only discernible difference would be that of "headroom".

And yes, a crap recording will sound that way. At the end of the day, let those with the money, buy the best gear. Money does not always = taste.

Devh

It doesn't take a musician to hear the difference. I'm not a professional musician but being an audio enthusiast I can hear the difference. I cant hear much of a difference between the 24bit formats like 44khz , 96khz or 196khz but I can certainly hear a difference when I downgrade to 16bit audio. I agree that the 24bit and very high resolution was primarily meant for studio engineers but it was also because it was cost prohibitive for the consumer. Now that it's available on Blueray formats you are getting a better source of audio because the technology is possible for the masses.

CD format from it's inception was a compromise to confirm to DIN standards for automobiles. This compromise was not because it's just good enough. The same thing with MP3 audio and digital streaming as it is a compromise because of memory and bandwidth limitations but still the proponents in the industry will say there is no difference.

There is a lot of garbage marketing in audio like cables, speaker wire and beats headphones which goes to show you there is still an ignorant consumer that will buy into this stuff for better audio when it doesn't really take a fortune to be focused on building a quality system for the money.

nsaldanh

The older LS systems with ML allow you to play DVD-Audio discs. They sound really good and you can tell the difference between music mastered at 24 bit/96 Khz that is uncompressed and the same music that's been compressed at 256Kb or 320 Kb.

Now some people can tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit files. I'm not sure that I can always pick them out in a blind test. My hearing is not as good as that of a teenager either.

Another new source for lossless streaaming is Tidal. It launched in the US 2 weeks ago and costs $20/month. That does sound better than Spotify that compresses at 320 Kb.